clore

I agree. One of those films has particularly been ground into the dust. It's being shown on February 13. I think the 31 days of Oscar concept has passed its sell by date. I would say that as with "The Essentials" it may be a case of just trumpeting the same titles over and over and that some consideration should be given to other formats. "But this is the way we always do it" isn't always the best way to run a business. Even the guest programmer series - Ron Perlman has lined up SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, GUNGA DIN, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON and RED RIVER. What do they do with these guests, give them a list of the films that play the most often and ask them to pick from there? On the other hand, I do like Osborne's "Bob's Picks" monthly feature as he tends to stick a premiere in there, and often enough some titles that get little play or are worthy of note even if not well-known. I really wish it would become a weekly showcase instead of all four picks on one night. As I have done for the last few years, I'll use the time to go through my DVDs.

Clore, thanks for letting me know about Marie Dressler being on tomorrows schedule. I'll definitely watch it. I haven't even checked tomorrows schedule, yikes !!!! You are quite welcome. I passed on the first one with William Haines. Dressler is the best part of the film though. Haines, in this particular film just annoys the heck out of me and I don't have much heck to spare.

Marie Dressler starred with Chaplin in Tillie's Punctured Romance (1914), the first feature length comedy. She's also very funny talking to Jean Harlow in Dinner At Eight. A very funny and talented lady. I think she's great..... Then you'll be happy tomorrow with Marie on the schedule from 630am-8pm.

Well, there's Dennis Weaver. As the motel manager in *Touch of Evil*, he was nervous, almost to the point of psychosis. I would suggest that Janet Leigh should avoid motels. She has no luck at all with them.

I really didn't mind the coincidences in THIS GUN FOR HIRE but I do believe that THE BLUE DAHLIA does have a bit too many for me to accept. I will tell you of a weird coincidence that happened to me. When I was 14, I was on a subway train going from Manhattan to Brooklyn. A few stops later, a girl gets on and damn if she doesn't look just like my two-year older sister. How much of a resemblance? Enough to have me go over to her and ask why she isn't saying hello back to me, that's how much. She looks at me as if I'm crazy and then asks for the name of my sister. When I said "Noreene" she responded that this isn't the first time that someone called her Noreene, but that for it to be her own brother this time must mean there REALLY is a resemblance. I had to get off at the next stop to make my connecting train. I see there is one just pulling in so I ran up the steps. I get inside the train just as the doors close and what do I see - my mother is sitting in one of the seats. I tell ya, I was apprehensive about approaching her, I felt as if I entered the TWILIGHT ZONE.

There were two threads about Lawford, here's one of them: http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8553994 And here is the other: http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=161404&tstart=0 Maybe some people did get a bit testy on the subject, but I take that as part of the message board process. No one should start a thread and expect total agreement, and no one reading it should either. The people here are film buffs for the most part and they're passionate about their likes and dislikes. Some may be more eloquent about it than others, but that's par for the course also and as long as we're all respectful in disagreement, there should not be a problem. In a related story, I hear that the fifth dentist who didn't recommend Trident sugarless gum is in fear for his life.

A couple of recent example are the complete blow up about the theme day of William Hopper films. There were some rarely seen B films, some with Ann Sheridan & Walter Brennan, actors people love, but because Hopper was in them some folks thought that a day devoted to him was unnecessary and he didn't deserve it. Funny that you mention that thread - I was the one who started it. I was surprised to see an actor of his relatively minor standing given a day, but I have no problem with seeing some titles that hardly ever air. I'm out to see every possible 30s and 40s film that I've never seen before,. so that schedule was right up my alley. Yesterday's Anthony Newley day was also rather a surprise, do many even recall him at all for his film career? And we're not done with Newley as there is TANK FORCE airing in about 30 minutes. I'll check in to see if it's in widescreen - the schedule doesn't indicate it, but I'm open to surprises. I'm open to any creative thematic programming. One thing that I won't do is complain that a title shouldn't air because I don't like it. That's why there are on/off buttons and channel selectors with each TV sold. I do get annoyed with aspect ratios being cheated, but as I wrote earlier to DarkBlue, a great deal of that is because TCM (and DVD) has spoiled me. When I had the Fox Movie Channel, I wrote them a letter as they don't have message boards. I did moan about several titles that they aired in the Academy ratio which were Cinemascope films in their day. They of all services, as the originator of the Cinemascope process, should make more of an effort. I never got an answer. On the other hand, when they moved from a free channel to a pay-channel on my Time-Warner cable system, I let them go on without me. I've already seen most of what they have to offer anyway. I do want to add that while I didn't care for STORM CENTER, were it to air again, I would never tell anyone to avoid watching it. They might get something out of it that I didn't. I'm only bringing this up just to cover my butt regarding the thread subject.

..and if Ally Sheedy maried William Katt, she'd be Ally Katt. If Dana Wynter married Dana Andrews, she would be Dana Andrews.

I've seen so many different accounts of Ladd's height, I don't know what to believe. Somehow when he joined the service, his papers had him as 5'9" and that has to be a bit ambitious. I'd say that 5'5" or maybe 5'6" is more accurate.

In THE BLUE DAHLIA, I love how Tom Powers as the cop mentions that he can't wait for the photo of Morrison to come through as "that description we have matches a million guys." They could have possibly minimized that a bit if the description gave out a mention of the suspect's height. But I guess that seeing as it was Ladd, they didn't want to commit themselves.

I just have to mention that in both films last night, Ladd and Lake meet under the most amazing of coincidences. In the first film, she's the fiancee of the cop investigating the case and she's also working for the man who just happened to be the one who is setting up Ladd for the robbery. Of course they just happen to meet on a train. In the second film aired, Ladd walks out on his wife who just happens to be seeing Da Silva who just happens to be the husband of Lake who just happens to be driving by when Ladd is looking for a lift. Later on in the film, she just happens to be at the hotel just as Ladd comes looking for her husband - not knowing that they are related. Still later in the film, Lake just happens to be picking at flowers in the same way that Ladd's wife did at the time she was visited by Bendix and the same monkey music tune just happened to be playing both times.

I do appreciate your courtesy and consideration. I think that we've just demonstrated that discussion that is respectful should be a primary goal and there is always a need to be flexible. In cases like that, the forum might be better served if the topics of aspect ratios and network advertising were given their own threads, where others are more likely to find them and participate in the discussions. I think that some "sticky threads" would be a good idea. Perhaps you might like to initiate a thread asking others for possible ideas for such topics. Of course, adherence to the topic *should* be adhered there so that posters such as I who have a habit of making goofy puns don't clog up the thread. Or even worse could ha[ppen. As an example, ten years ago on the IMDb, the admins announced an upcoming boards upgrade and they were soliciting possible changes from the users. I suggested an ignore button, something to function in a similar manner as the spam list in my Hotmail program that prevented me from having to see unsolicited ads which only clogged up my in-box. Wow, at that mention I was accused of all sorts of things, most along the lines of being a fascist dictator trying to stifle free speech. To which I mentioned that one's right to speak wasn't being curtailed, but it enabled a person to put into effect his own right of not having to listen. The tone of the thread changed and I let this go on for a few days without responding as the differences kept getting more intense and less respectful. Then I came back to say "this thread now serves as an illustration of why we need such a feature." It was the only suggestion made in that thread that was put into effect. Most of the thread descended into flame wars with posters showing extreme hostility over someone else's suggestions. The IMDb had good intentions, I give them credit for that.

(honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). The only other one that I can think of who was more or less a contemporary and could have been cast is Roddy MacDowall. In the cheap 1967 British *remake* (highlighted to indicate adherence to thread subject) of *The Golem* titled simply *It!*, He plays a character very much based on Norman - he even has his mummified mother's corpse hanging around just in case we missed the connection. That nervousness was used to good effect in the ending of the *Columbo* episode in which MacDowall was the guest murderer. Elisha Cook was an earlier actor who was excellent at conveying nervousness. He's the kind of person a mugger would target as he just looks like a victim. Paul Giamatti has that kind of face also.

Any further posts that are not directly discussing Storm Center will be deleted and the poster will earn a timeout. You have been warned. Thank you. Isn't that a little severe? Just how are we to take that relative to other potential threads? For example, I could start a thread about HIGH NOON and someone could come along to perhaps bring up HUAC - an element that did hang over the production. That mention of HUAC could then spring into some discussion of that topic which would not be strictly HIGH NOON-related, but still somewhat relevant. Or someone could bring up RIO BRAVO, a film made as a reaction to HIGH NOON. The exchanges could very well lead to discussion of Hawks and Wayne and their other collaborations. It may not be HIGH NOON then being referenced, but it is still film-related. For the sake of future reference, I'm am just curious as to how strict thread adherence must be. There is a long-running thread that is titled "BronxGirl's Mother, Henry Fonda's Hirsuteness, Etc..." If someone doesn't directly refer to BronxGirl's Mother or Henry Fonda's hair, would that be a similar violation or does the "etc" cover any possible straying from the subject line? I'm not trying to be a wise guy or should I say an **** retentive nitpicker. I'm just respectfully wondering about the boundaries of adhering to thread titles. For example, my asking for elaboration has me sitting here wondering if I'm going to get a time out as this post does not directly refer to STORM CENTER.

"Cocktails always make Billy Wilder but if you see Audrey Totter, can Richard Walker ?" Shouldn't that be Robert Walker? I always liked one that I saw in Mad Magazine when I was a little boy: "Has Irene Dunne what Mary Astor? If not, Natalie Wood." If Rhonda Fleming married Henry Fonda, she'd be Rhonda Fonda. I remember seeing AIRPORT 1977 and in it Lee Grant plays the wife of Christopher Lee. Were they real-life spouses, she would be Lee Lee.

Flint certainly had a way with killer female robots. He's also my favorite character in THE MAGNIFICENT 7. Note his intro in the film, he's makes an impression without one line of dialogue. A couple of his co-stars (we won't name names) were feuding over lines, close-ups and upstaging tricks, but Coburn barely speaks in the film and still I can't help but notice him. DEAD HEAT ON A MERRY-GO-ROUND maintains its interest for me solely becaue of Coburn's charisma. He walks through the film totally in charge and there's no evidence of him going to the director and saying "give me more shots where I just stand there staring into space and looking cool."

Networks advertising other networks? Insane. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing, focus testing and targeted promotion to get you here and now we're sending you someplace else My suggestion of that did have a purpose. If advertising a relatively weak CBS show on ABC helped the CBS show to perform better, then it does speak well for the value of advertising on the networks. And, since the plan was to increase the value of ad time, the intent was to charge a rival network more than the going rate. That would therefore increase the value of any other ad spots left unsold - supply and demand. At the time, the networks were afraid of the cable competition in terms of attracting advertisers. The cable stations were putting up a conjoined effort, telling the ad community that they might have smaller numbers, but their rates were cheaper and by spreading out the commercials and running more of them (known as "frequency" in the trade) across the various cable channels, they would do just as well if not better than by airing one spot on a network going for a bigger audience (known as "reach" in the industry). My whole point was that the cable guys were banding together to appeal to the advertisers while the networks were too busy fighting among themselves and missing the bigger picture. They could not see that their respective piece of the audience pie was eroding year-by-year. Yes, they do spend all those bucks in testing and marketing, but the failure rate of new shows is probably higher now than ever. I wonder what NBC spent on JAG to cast it away after its first season, and then CBS picked it up and it ran for nine years there. That was a fairly wise decision for CBS, the show wasn't doing that badly on NBC, but at that time they were ruling the networks and felt that they could do better. Demographically it skewed a bit older than most NBC shows, but it was a perfect fit on CBS. Back when I was a kid, LEAVE IT TO BEAVER first aired on CBS. But it was a kidcom and not performing as well as the other comedies on CBS. ABC picked it up and for them it was a natural. Most of their programming was much younger in appeal so promoting it was easy. There was a time when advertisers wouldn't buy a "3" demo rating on a network. Now, a web can score a 3 and claim dominance in the time period, that's how small their piece has become.

Whoa, whoa, whoa- slow down there guys!!! It's one thing to remake a bad movie well, but the remake of a classic film can *destroy* the original. But let's take a subject such as Robin Hood for example. Certainly there may have been some in 1938 who thought it was a bad idea to revisit the subject since Douglas Fairbanks did such a great job with it in 1922. But were it not made, we would have lost Errol Flynn in his signature role. There is a case of where the technological improvements of sound and color were well-implemented. On the other hand, another Flynn film, THE DAWN PATROL was to some extent unnecessary as the earlier one did have sound and both were in black-and-white. In fact, the flying sequences in the remake were pulled right from the earlier version, the film was really only made as it was relatively easy for Warners to get another Flynn film out on the market. I wouldn't want the Fairbanks version of THIEF OF BAGDAD to be the only one, the one with Sabu is another example of better technology yielding a grand remake. But two subsequent versions didn't do much for me. On the other hand, I don't see the need for the Dirk Bogarde remake of A TALE OF TWO CITIES as the Ronald Colman one was still superior in terms of production design and execution (no pun intended) despite being made two decades earlier. I try to be flexible as there are a number of remakes that I value highly - such as the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, but two subsequent remakes are best forgotten. As far as each generation worshipping its own, hey if I can embrace films made before my time, why can't they? If they don't want to, then that's their shortcoming. It's funny, about a decade ago I was talking to a co-worker who had a copy of "The Big Sleep" on his desk. I asked if he was enjoying it and he said that yes indeed, he liked Raymond Chandler. We talked a bit about the book and then I asked if he ever saw the movie with Bogart. "Aw man, that movie came out long before I was born" he said. "And the book is even older than the movie, but that doesn't stop you from reading it, does it?" He didn't have an answer. I guess too many out there set their own limitations. What a shame.

I'm a Queens guy, that was why I asked you the other day about Roosevelt and Steinway. The combo of two major Queens thoroughfares was too good to resist. The Kaufman theater over near Steinway Street is where I usually see new films. I live a short bus ride away, near a White Castle on Northern Blvd if you know the area. TCM does have a fair amount of scheduled films that tie in with DVD releases. A couple of years ago there was a William Wellman night that coincided with the 3rd Edition of "Forbidden Hollywood" and all the same titles aired. That's almost shooting themselves in the foot as anyone with a DVD recorder could have just saved some money. But I've also seen them have nights that tied in with a John Ford collection issued by Fox, so I guess they're not just pushing the in-house titles. I remember the glory days of The Late Show when it ran films all night and much of my early introduction was to films on WCBS. When I applied for the job there, they were surprised that I knew the name of the first title to air on their "Schaeffer Award Theater" - a showcase aired several times a year that premiered titles and had only four commercial interruptions. I was only 11 when it started. Last night I tried watching a SIMPSONS episode while killing time waiting for BOARDWALK EMPIRE. There were three internal breaks during the show and the third one came only three minutes after the second one ended. No wonder I barely watch broadcast TV anymore. The breaks are so long that I could cook a turkey. I agree that TCM is the best channel out there, and my criticisms are always with that in mind. The broadcast networks took the audience for granted and just look at how they have lost huge audience shares to cable competition. Years ago when the fallout was beginning to occur, and there were industry meetings about how to properly promote the webs versus cable, I suggested that they sell each other advertising time. Thus, let CBS promote a show within ABC's highest rated show and vice versa. There were some "rules" that I suggested, such as not promoting a show that would air on the same night, but I was told this would never go over with the affiliates who would not want to promote the competition. I said "You mean the same affiliates who now air spots for HBO, video games, video tapes, theatrical releases and other activities that are all competing for one's leisure time?" My idea would have kept the value of ad time high, which would have eliminated the need to further expand the amount of commercial time. Now the audience has become complacent, between cable and the broadcast industry, everyone is used to a one-third commercial ratio. I'm surprised that the ad buyers aren't up in arms. In one break I saw three different car ads one right after the other. It wasn't different models from one corporation, it was three distinct manufacturers. There used to be protection for an advertiser within a commercial pod. i haven't been a faithful watcher of any network series since EZ STREETS and AMERICAN GOTHIC were cancelled. It seems that everything that I like winds up cancelled - why invest the time? Sorry for the rant. I am one of the original TV generation kids and I'm really sorry to see it in such a state of decline that a genuine fan can no longer bear to watch it. By the way, I saw the Susan Hayward BACK STREET on NBC's "Saturday Night at the Movies" back in 1967. In that era, there were only six minutes of commercials per half-hour and there were complaints then from people who were used to four minutes per half-hour as was the standard a decade earlier. Oh - and that little boy in STORM CENTER. He was the one who had the gun pointing at Tony and Sidney in THE DEFIANT ONES. A decade later he was doing Max Frost's taxes in WILD IN THE STREETS.

And a lot after. If what they have on hand is pan and scan, I'll take it. That's preferable to not getting them at all. I guess you could say that I've been spoiled and TCM is a great part of that process. Before TCM and DVDs, I was content with the limitations inherent to TV and VCRs. But seeing so many films in the proper ratio over the last 15 years or so has spoiled me to a great degree. Some directors use scope better than others. Some, such as Spielberg when shooting *E.T* kept the action confined to the middle of the screen knowing that the film would eventually be released to video and television. I'm also less disturbed by 1.65:1 or 1.85:1 films in the Academy ratio as less is lost. But with 2.35:1 or greater, too much is lost for me to be complacent.

This forum has turned into a rage against the machine, while I'd think it would be better to address your concerns directly to the powers that be. Why, so you won't have to see it? From my experience, the powers-that-be do check this place, but more on that later. As you note, this is a forum but it does not say only those who wear rose-colored glasses need post here. I'm not off-topic, I'm discussing the channel. Besides, I've not only made critical comments in my history, I've also offered compliments and have been defensive where I thought it was appropriate. I know exactly to whom you addressed your sly comment, and I guess you've noticed (or maybe not) that neither one of those people are posting in this forum anymore--who can blame them. If I was berated & insulted every time I tried to offer an explanation, I would quit too. In fact, I did quit posting for about 6 months because of all the negativity around here. On the contrary, I was the one who was berated for even daring to bring a criticism up for discussion. And by the way, the person who did it is still posting, I've seen several posts from that person today. Thus, you are quite mistaken. I personally do not think TCM has any sinister motives. I never said that they did either. And taking the moral high ground? It's a damn TV station. You, and others of your ilk, have very high standards that I don't think anyone could achieve those standards. Yes, it's a TV station. Thus, it's a candidate for criticism. As for high standards, I think that most of the time, TCM lives up to them. But that should not stop me or anyone from bringing it up when they slip a notch. Take the time that they aired the 1937 A STAR IS BORN which not only had missing credits, but which rewinded and then replayed a nine minute scene... Is that a high standard? Should I not have mentioned it? Maybe if I didn't, that same print would have been replayed. Similar would apply to the time that they had a defective print of LI'L ABNER that compressed the image from top to bottom. I wasn't the one who complained that time, but surely both cases speak of the need for some spot checking before things get on the air. Even TCMprogrammr came into the forum to apologize for some recent on-air flubs in the thread about A STAR IS BORN. I have a 30-year career in broadcasting including a stint as head of broadcast operations for WCBS-TV in NYC. We were once sent a print of the wrong TRUE GRIT, we got the TV movie with Warren Oates rather than the John Wayne version. Advance screening stopped that from getting on the air. That's just one case among many incidents of getting a film, a tape or satellite feed of something which had some screw-up come along with it. Yes I have high standards, and I know from experience that a station can also demonstrate them. I'm not asking TCM to achieve anything that isn't possible. Yes, mistakes happen, but when they do, safeguards should be initiated and not the preparation of excuses fior the next time something similar happens.

I'll take a pan and scan of something I haven't seen over a proper format of an over-played most of the time. What makes you think that I'm suggesting that some over-played title be aired in its place? There's still a lot of titles yet to be shown that were made before Cinemascope came into play. There's a million movies I haven't seen yet and I'm not getting any younger. Please, I hit 60 last week, there are still tons of 30s and 40s movies that I have yet to see. I've been keeping track and I've seen 2,663 films since January 1, 2008 and most were made in the first half of the last century. True, a lot of them I had seen already, but of that list, only five percent were duplicated.

James Coburn as Flint has to be mentioned.

As to *The Big Sleep*, years ago, TCM ran the original version, before they added in more Bacall. I really wish they'd run that version again. I'm not saying I prefer it, but I'd sure like to see it again. The film is one that airs often enough that I never saw the need to buy the DVD. That is, I didn't until I caught it on sale at Amazon where you can score a DVD with both versions of the film for less than seven bucks. That's two-thirds off the list price. http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sleep-Snap-case/dp/B00002E227/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1320713345&sr=1-3

Do you think the director instructed Bette to pretend that she could not act? I think that possibly he didn't know how to direct her, or that he just didn't care. He also didn't notice that when the class was singing the library song, they were pronouncing it "liberry" as did several of the actors when reciting their lines. Maybe he told her "Pretend that you just don't care about the supposed controversy" and she only heard the first part of that piece of direction.